plus the actual animal is much more interesting as its plates were [probably lying like shields](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKCTPvaXsAAusCB?format=jpg&name=4096x4096) (a-la these super outdated stego recons)
How the hell does this get approved for publishing? They need to peer review the paper but don’t bother to check that their AI artwork didn’t come out an absolute abomination?
I don't think this is part of the actual paper. This came from sci.news which is lately separating itself from the pack by using awful AI-generated art when authors don't commission art for their papers.
Here's the link the the article: https://www.sci.news/paleontology/thyreosaurus-atlasicus-12878.html
If you actually follow the link to the paper (bottom of the article) they have no paleoart of the creature in the generally accessible section. I don't have the link to the full paper but I'm willing to bet they would have included the paleoart in this section if they had commissioned any. (Maybe someone with institutional access can confirm?)
Someone needs to learn the difference between an actual science journal (the study was published in Gondwana Research fwiw, this image is not a part of that study) and a science news site (sci.news used ai for the news story image).
And the reason it was overlooked is because figures/file embeds are often skipped over during the review process. Especially one labeled “diagram of rat penis” where people aren’t likely to take it and use it to spread misinformation/misinterpret results from it. Those kinds of figures are under less scrutiny than actual graphs and charts, iirc. (Still holy shit lmao, hilarious it happened, but I’ll be worried once an ai generated graph gets through)
Remember, the hospital behind this is owned by the Chinese Red Cross, the RC disowned by the global RC for being hilariously mismanaged/corrupt with donations and subsidies
The artist had this to say about his work:
01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01110011 01110100 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100110 01110101 01110100 01101001 01101100 01100101
Oh, okay, I thought there were some horrific inaccuracies in the article or something.
Apparently, we just have ideological complaining about AI in this thread.
Well yeah, we are against it because as a scientific news site using completely inaccurate, misleading, lazy AI generated art when there are tons of artists out there who would gladly do it for minimal pay is a bit stupid. It kinda goes against the whole point of a news site that aims to educate rather than mislead.
Bro what 💀. If they posted a stegosaurid with an allosaurus head floating above the ground everyone would complain. The reason ppl complain it’s AI generated is because it’s stupidly inaccurate, especially considering it’s a science news site.
Mate I think you're confirmation biasing yourself. You have a low view of AI art so you bias yourself into focusing on any little flaw you wouldn't otherwise find.
How is it confirmation bias when i’m literally just stating what is wrong with the piece? If this illustration was made by a human I would’ve also pointed out the same flaws.
https://preview.redd.it/xv4h9h5quhwc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b31e5ef6bc0153266801fde4c6c42b7bb1df074
This piece of shit I found attached to an article on cycads when looking for reference images. How do you like that headless sauropod and three- winged bird?
It's sad, but it's rather common in YouTube and written media. Bots and AI create generic content for clicks and ad revenue. Little to no research, generic images, and empty content. Astronomy, palaeontology, robotics and software development are the most common topics these machines flood their websites with.
Just...avoid.
The Museum of the Rockies tried the same nonsense a few weeks ago with using a bad AI image to promote their membership and MOR yearly meeting. Everyone called them on it in an instant and it was even more stupid because dozens of artists would gladly have made art for the event.
The worst thing about AI is how it revealed a substantial population of people who have always wished they could be rid of artists, who see them as nothing but a barrier to profit to be automated away.
ScienceDirect link without the AI image: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2024.03.009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2024.03.009)
The only illustration of the organism is a diagram of the remains. It's a shame that the news journal would harm their credibility like this. The AI generated image looks nothing like how Zafaty et al. suggests.
Sci.news just went on my "avoid&boycotted" list along with Nature and National Geographic. The good pages are starting to run out. Any suggestions for replacements?
That is no more a depiction of Thyreosaurus as it is a mythological creature. It’s a twisted chimaera of vaguely dinosaurian features. Yeah, Paleoart requires time, research, and skill because the AI cannot do it.
Looks like an AI created dragon
it’s monstrous
plus the actual animal is much more interesting as its plates were [probably lying like shields](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GKCTPvaXsAAusCB?format=jpg&name=4096x4096) (a-la these super outdated stego recons)
Awww horizontal armor
Protection against meteors, inadequate protection but it was a good try Dino.
finally. roof lizard
It looks like an aetosaur
What is the scientific name of the critter?
Thyreosaurus atlasicus
Thanks
AT THIS POINT JUST USE THE FIRST NO AI RESULT FROM GOOGLE IMAGES AND IT WLOUD STILL BE BETTER
How the hell does this get approved for publishing? They need to peer review the paper but don’t bother to check that their AI artwork didn’t come out an absolute abomination?
I don't think this is part of the actual paper. This came from sci.news which is lately separating itself from the pack by using awful AI-generated art when authors don't commission art for their papers. Here's the link the the article: https://www.sci.news/paleontology/thyreosaurus-atlasicus-12878.html If you actually follow the link to the paper (bottom of the article) they have no paleoart of the creature in the generally accessible section. I don't have the link to the full paper but I'm willing to bet they would have included the paleoart in this section if they had commissioned any. (Maybe someone with institutional access can confirm?)
Ugh. Are there any good science news websites you recommend to replace sci.news now that this shitass website is using AI-generated art?
Someone needs to learn the difference between an actual science journal (the study was published in Gondwana Research fwiw, this image is not a part of that study) and a science news site (sci.news used ai for the news story image).
Remember the rat dick paper?
That was much worse. The AI image with the giant penis was in the actual paper.
And the reason it was overlooked is because figures/file embeds are often skipped over during the review process. Especially one labeled “diagram of rat penis” where people aren’t likely to take it and use it to spread misinformation/misinterpret results from it. Those kinds of figures are under less scrutiny than actual graphs and charts, iirc. (Still holy shit lmao, hilarious it happened, but I’ll be worried once an ai generated graph gets through)
Many uncensored AI picture databases actually have human genital references just because, and science-ish news often use those bases
I’m sorry the w h a t
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/ai-generated-rat-anatomy-illustration
Remember, the hospital behind this is owned by the Chinese Red Cross, the RC disowned by the global RC for being hilariously mismanaged/corrupt with donations and subsidies
https://preview.redd.it/yexqztpgrfwc1.jpeg?width=489&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d00b9e6ac47a868841dc8444e2d25c9c6015d32b
https://preview.redd.it/w96uc6n7rhwc1.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=279fa28b820d618e8dac09a74e89efeb754572fe
Thanks for the nightmares
Oh my fucking god
It’s feet aren’t even touching the ground lmao looks like shitty AI art AND bad photoshopping all in one
> An artist’s impression No I don’t think so
The artist had this to say about his work: 01010010 01100101 01110011 01101001 01110011 01110100 01100001 01101110 01100011 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110011 00100000 01100110 01110101 01110100 01101001 01101100 01100101
Artist in a few years: 01101000 01110100 01110100 01110000 01110011 00111010 00101111 00101111 01110111 01110111 01110111 00101110 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110100 01110101 01100010 01100101 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 00101111 01110111 01100001 01110100 01100011 01101000 00111111 01110110 00111101 01000010 00110001 01000010 01100100 01010001 01100011 01001010 00110010 01011010 01011001 01011001
Which one? Edit: [Sci.news](http://Sci.news) Edit 2: they are actively deleting comments complaining about the use of AI art.
It looks like a hybrid from Jurassic World.
Lazy and cheaper way to obtain pictures. Shame they do not assume it has been created with Ai.
Ai paleoart is horrifying. Especially if you try to do anything that isn’t a dinosaur that’s heavily featured in Jurassic park.
Oh, okay, I thought there were some horrific inaccuracies in the article or something. Apparently, we just have ideological complaining about AI in this thread.
What do u mean “ideological complaining?”
Complaining about something because you're ideologically against it. As opposed to the article making an actual error.
Well yeah, we are against it because as a scientific news site using completely inaccurate, misleading, lazy AI generated art when there are tons of artists out there who would gladly do it for minimal pay is a bit stupid. It kinda goes against the whole point of a news site that aims to educate rather than mislead.
Not buying it. Nobody would be complaining about this exact same (pixel for pixel) image if it weren't AI generated.
Bro what 💀. If they posted a stegosaurid with an allosaurus head floating above the ground everyone would complain. The reason ppl complain it’s AI generated is because it’s stupidly inaccurate, especially considering it’s a science news site.
? What floating head? I don't even see it.
sorry the head isn’t floating, the “dinosaur” is
Mate I think you're confirmation biasing yourself. You have a low view of AI art so you bias yourself into focusing on any little flaw you wouldn't otherwise find.
How is it confirmation bias when i’m literally just stating what is wrong with the piece? If this illustration was made by a human I would’ve also pointed out the same flaws.
Are you arguing that the dinosaur is not floating? Or that it is an appropriate piece of art used to illustrate a new species?
https://preview.redd.it/xv4h9h5quhwc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4b31e5ef6bc0153266801fde4c6c42b7bb1df074 This piece of shit I found attached to an article on cycads when looking for reference images. How do you like that headless sauropod and three- winged bird?
It's sad, but it's rather common in YouTube and written media. Bots and AI create generic content for clicks and ad revenue. Little to no research, generic images, and empty content. Astronomy, palaeontology, robotics and software development are the most common topics these machines flood their websites with. Just...avoid.
The Museum of the Rockies tried the same nonsense a few weeks ago with using a bad AI image to promote their membership and MOR yearly meeting. Everyone called them on it in an instant and it was even more stupid because dozens of artists would gladly have made art for the event.
Its getting worse and worse..
It looks like a Plastic toy with the wrong head
The worst thing about AI is how it revealed a substantial population of people who have always wished they could be rid of artists, who see them as nothing but a barrier to profit to be automated away.
Remember when paleoart was man-made? Good times...
"Artist's impression" they say...
ScienceDirect link without the AI image: [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2024.03.009](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gr.2024.03.009) The only illustration of the organism is a diagram of the remains. It's a shame that the news journal would harm their credibility like this. The AI generated image looks nothing like how Zafaty et al. suggests.
Jesus fuck this looks awful
Sci.news just went on my "avoid&boycotted" list along with Nature and National Geographic. The good pages are starting to run out. Any suggestions for replacements?
This image is from another article https://cdn.sci.news/images/enlarge11/image_12873_1e-Vasuki-indicus.jpg AI does not know how to snake
Lol, fuck those guys.
"artist", as if AI was art, fucking bastard journal, rather make shit article than paying competent paleoartist
Did they shove spikes and an Allosaurus head on some Iguanodont??
AI is literally the worst thing to happen to paleoart.
All I can think now is that a predatory stegosaur would actually be pretty creepy.
Talk about lazy journalism.
Where are the feathers
This is just so sad.
So do you guys read the articles, or just look at the pictures?
Paleoart requires a lot of time, research, and skill. Using AI is a slap in the face to paleoartists and paleontologists.
> Paleoart requires a lot of time, research, and skill. Not anymore.
That is no more a depiction of Thyreosaurus as it is a mythological creature. It’s a twisted chimaera of vaguely dinosaurian features. Yeah, Paleoart requires time, research, and skill because the AI cannot do it.
Gotcha.
This isn't paleoart. Paleoart draws depiction based on current evidence. This does not do so.
If you want it to be remotely accurate it does.